Well I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the weapon has been reduced to nothing, as it still has merit. I will agree, as others have pointed out as well, that being a chain-gun, there is absolutely no reason that it should have magazines.As for losing fifty rounds, while it is a disappointment I have no problems with it. Two hundred rounds are just fine by me, but two hundred fifty rounds are even better!Being a chain-gun, I would imagine that its accuracy wouldn’t be all that fantastic to begin with. The chain-gun in Nexus is six barreled, so it is very probable that the bullets discharged would deviate slightly from the previous round. So I don’t think that its accuracy is all that bad with this mind.One other thing that I noticed is that they stripped away its manual aiming reticule; although given its accuracy, there is a sense of logic to it having been removed. The dual shoulder chain-gun still retains the reticule however.

I agree that the chaingun needed to be toned down a bit, (ACE from AC3 bring up any memories?) but reducing to its current state is something to rant about, i also agree with JG's assesment, a weapon like that would be much better.

Do you know, IMHO the Chaingun was never really badly broken? Well, that's my honest opinion, it wasn't. I think, personally, that it was OP-I that made it such a deadly weapon, consider this:

The Chaingun is a cannon weapon, now, exclude OP-I from the proceedings and examine it. Depending on your leg type, you may have to crouch to use it, or be able to use it mobile so long as you stay on the ground, or use it freely. Studying the first instance here, which applies to biped, RJ and hover legs, we find that the Chaingun is actually surprisingly ineffective. The Chaingun is highly uncommon among cannon weaponry in its disposition to deal damage through rapid weaker attacks, as almost all the others use high powered single attacks for their effect. Grenades, laser and plasma cannons all do, the slug gun uses a burst of weak shots all at once to similar effect, and the pulse cannons are at most halfway between damage and rate of fire. Now when you kneel to fire a cannon weapon, you severely restrict your mobility, since you can't move and turn a lot slower. What this means is that even if you do manage to line up your sights with your target they will usually quickly be able to escape them, so you only have a brief window of opportunity. Every other weapon can work in these conditions, for example no matter how long the grenade launcher takes to reload between shots, it fires as soon as you pull the trigger, so you can land a single hit, causing major damage, and then fold the weapon away and move on during the reload time. However, the Chaingun needs to fire continuously to cause significant damage, meaning that while another cannon weapon may wait for a full lock, fire one round and connect with a few thousand attack power, the Chaingun needs to keep firing and the target would need to stay within your sights for the time it takes for a grenade launcher, for example, to reload to have a similar effect. What will actually probably happen is that the target will probably move out of the sight box before more than a few fully-locked rounds can be fired, meaning the Chaingun will be lucky to deal half as much damage as one of the other cannon weapon types. In the case of quads, it is true that they can move and fire on the ground, but since they cannot use the weapon airborne, it only takes some application of the boosters to go where they cannot follow, and the weapon is rendered far less effective. And lastly tanks, who can operate the weapon fully, well the truth is that unless you're also using a heavy AC you should be faster and more agile than the tank and if you don't want to get chewed up by the Chaingun then use it to stop it getting too close. No-one complains about flamethrowers because people who get close enough can kill you in seconds (tested ...), because it can be very difficult to do, and so is balanced. Its OP-I that broke the Chaingun, that's what I reckon, being able to move around that much on faster ACs and still fire (and with double energy too ), that's broken. I mean, no-one thinks rockets are broken, do they? But I bet if, without in anyway changing them, you added an optional part or something that let them lock like normal weapons, then that would be seriously broken I bet. Take away OP-I, and the Chaingun is a useful, but balanced weapon IMHO .

And Fyrestorm wins the best-post-of-the-month award. Your insights, while seemingly obvious, are in fact original. And I believe you are indeed correct in that it was OP-I that broke the chain gun, not the merits of the weapon itself. Well done sir.

Having my respect is better than a trophy anyways. It was refreshing to see someone challenge conventional thinking (if you'd said "Chain gun not broken" on the ACGarage forums you'd have been shot at) and provide evidence to support the claim. Like I said, I'm inclined (now) to agree with you on this.

Well of course it is *Bows to almighty JG of t3h 10K Club*, heh . If I can figure out a way to fit it in, I'll put it in my Sig some time soon I think . And you've given me such an idea JG , there's a topic in the Garage called Three Word Story, its just an off-topic joke thread, next time I can I'm going to post "Chaingun not broken!" in there , that should be interesting. Welcome to the Chaingun Not Broken Club JG .

As I have stated before, I am a fan of bladed weaponry, and would like to discuss the parrying blades. The applicable statistics for the three parrying blades available Armored Core Nexus are provided below as reference to the weapons performance. Take note however, the delay time between the weapon's activation and actual use is not a recorded statistic, nor is it known whether or not the arm operating the blade affects its timing.

For those who may be unfamiliar with parrying blades, they are exclusive right arm weapons that are used to deflect laser blade attacks, and then finish their block with an attack.I truly think this was an igneous idea made by From Software, but there are certainly a few traits with these weapons that trouble me.The first thing that I do not understand is the delay time between activating the weapon, and the time it actually performs is stab/deflection. Laser swords are quite quick in performing their slash or stab (pending on the AC's legs) and therefore one would think a weapon with the primary goal of deflecting such an attack would be quick, as to ensure its success. Yet there is a noticeable delay between hitting the fire button and when the parrying blade is actually thrust forwards.It appears as though (and this is purely speculation, and by no means fact) that From Software was taking an organic approach to this weapon's use. By that, I mean this. Laser sword attacks are all quite powerful, even the weakest laser sword can inflict high levels of damage based upon one attack. So there is a sense of logic to assume that in order to deflect such an attack with another blade – not block it with a shield – one would have to exert a great level or force, so that their blade – a parrying blade – would not be knocked aside.However, in this instance we are not dealing with organic beings with muscles – but instead with mecha, which rely on gears and various other mechanical and electrical components.It is due to this, that it seems illogical that an AC using a parrying blade would need to pull back its arm, hold that motion for a few seconds, before thrusting their arm forwards to deflect the incoming energy blade, and stab their own blade into the enemy AC.The whole concept, as I have tried to explain (hopefully with success) is entirely illogical for a mecha. I can see the AC pulling back its arm, just to increase the general level or force that will be applied towards the enemy, but I can see no reason for there to be a delay between pulling their arm back, and then thrusting it forwards, as there are no muscles to contract.Yet another mystery is how the parrying blade actually works All three of the parrying blades have ammunition/usage limits applied to them. Now I can see how there may be a usage limit to a parrying blade when it is used effectively, and stabs an enemy mecha. The blade itself is metal, and by punching it into another metal form, it will be weakened and very quickly destroyed (Also, the fact that it deflected a highly concentrated beam of energy will obviously have damaged the blade – if it didn't destroy it in the process). However, when the parrying blade is used, and no contact with any form (whether a structure or some other form is achieved, it counts as being 'used.'And it is due to this, that the weapon is based upon an ammunition limit and not a usage limit, which is fine. This means that when it is used, the blade is destroyed, and is replaced by another blade stored within the weapon's chassis.Yet our mystery of how the weapon works is still not solved. If the weapon is based upon ammunition, as the evidence would seem to support, how is a blade used – and therefore destroyed – if contact is not made with anything.Well, then we have to re-examine the weapon in greater detail. So here is what we know so far:

1. Parrying Blades are not based on usage, but instead ammunition.2. When used, the blade is destroyed, and is replaced by another stored within the weapon's chassis.3. Due to the fact that a blade is 'used' whether contact is or is not established, the blade must therefore be launched from chassis, and is therefore a projectile weapon.4. Due to its nature – that of being used as a close range defensive weapon designed to defect energy swords – the launching range of the weapon is extremely short.Now that all seems fine, and is supported by all of the above information, but there is a problem with numbers 3 and 4.

First of all, if the parrying blades are actually projectile-based, as the evidence would indicate, why then does the AC using the parrying blade retract its arm when the weapon is first activated? Also, as a projectile weapon, why would there be such a large delay time between when the weapon is activated and actually fired?Secondly, as a projectile weapon, why does one not see the blade launch from the chassis (especially when no contact is made) when fired? And furthermore, if it were indeed a projectile weapon, why would its launching range (being how far the blade is launched into the air) be so incredibly short. Obviously, this type of weapon would become less effective at longer distances, (think of a throwing dagger or knife, and a bullet – the shape and weight of the dagger or knife is obviously going to make it less effective at longer distances than a bullet) but since longest range out of all of the parrying blades is 7, (unit used to describe distances in Armored Core is unknown) it seems rather impossible. As a projectile weapon, its range rating should be much higher.One more enigma, is how a metal blade is able to deflect is condensed beam of energy in the form of an energy blade. This is a far less forgivable fact, as the types of metals and alloys used in Armored Cores and Muscle Tracers has never been revealed, so it is possible they are 'all new metals and alloys', or it is possible that the parrying blade is coated in a special substance of some sort that enables it deflect a condensed beam of energy.As initially stated, I feel that the parrying blades are grand ideas, but these few mysteries surrounding the weapon have always troubled me into understanding how they actually work, and why they operate in the manner that they do.

like the actual gunblade, you have limited "ammo" for making vibrations in the blade itself, the energy of which can make it pierce through metal and even block laser blades (i dunno how, but if the zaku II heat hawk can parry the gundam's beam saber, all is fair and insane in the world of mecha physics)

when the "gunblade" runs out of ammo, it becomes scrap metal, not even powerful to penetrate AC armour without breaking like a pencil lead.

as for swinging its arms backwards and etc, perhaps it's programmed to do that *in the AC world, not in real life*? it would be much easier to have the computer mimic the movement of a person than to write out one program from scratch. A simple act of breathing places isn't as simple when u have to come up with a program from scratch.

this 'pulling back of the arm' is to increase momentum of the blade's launch.think about it. you fire a missile that can go 400mph from a standing start, it goes 400mph, right? now, lets say if you're in a supersonic jet going oh about 3000mph, and you fire that same missile, would it not travel at a speed of 3400mph and dramatically improve destructive power?

i know its lame in AC, but i reckon thats the case.

and this ammo, perhaps the blade is the same one throughout, but the mechanism for firing said blade has 10 uses? ie a spring that decays after 10 uses OR a charged explosive...

Ah, the concept of the gunblade is pretty flawed. The majority of the blade is solid-state - there's no way to physically allow a blade to vibrate so it can cut through another object without the blade itself not dissolving. Basic physics. For that matter, simply using a weapon designed to sonically dissolve an AC would likely be in aimed-weapon (gun) form.